Happy family

Find a legal form in minutes

Browse US Legal Forms’ largest database of 85k state and industry-specific legal forms.

California court’s jurisdiction to rule on motion for new trial

Author: LegalEase Solutions

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the California trial court has jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion for new trial after the 60 day statutory period.

 SHORT ANSWER

The general rule under California law is that the power of a court to rule on a motion for new trial expires within the 60 day statutory period. § 660 of the California Civil Procedure deals with the procedure for new trial. .

However, the court has inherent power to correct its own mistakes. Also, under § 473 of the California Civil Procedure, the court has the power to correct ‘clerical errors’. Clerical error includes error made due to inadvertence of the court.

Thus, the court may have jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion for new trial.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

Whether the California trial court has jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion for new trial after the 60 day statutory period.

 Generally, Code Civ. Proc., § 660 strictly limits a court’s power to hear a motion for new trial. “Where a trial court has failed to act upon a motion for a new trial within the statutory period, the motion is deemed denied and the appellate court cannot revive the power of the trial court to grant the motion.”Clemens v. Regents of University of California (1970) 8 Cal. App. 3d 1, 20 [87 Cal.Rptr.108, 122] (citing Siegal v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.2d 97, 65 Cal.Rptr.311, 436 P.2d 311).

Further, “[s]ection 660’s time limits are mandatory and jurisdictional, ‘and an order made after the 60–day period purporting to rule on a motion for new trial is in excess of the court’s jurisdiction and void.’” Green v. Laibco, LLC (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 441, 447 [121 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 420] (quoting Siegal v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 97, 101). , “Division Four of the Court of Appeal for the First District has extended the rule of . . . Siegal v. Superior Court, Supra, to the situation in which the trial judge ruling on the motion for a new trial applies an improper standard in denying the motion.” Clemens, (1970) 8 Cal. App. 3d 1.

However, “the trial court retains power in some circumstances to act with respect to a motion for a new trial after an appeal.” Id. “The issue as to what triggers the commencement of time within which to rule on a motion for new trial involves a pure question of statutory interpretation.” (citing People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Cherry Highland Properties (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 257, 260, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 (Cherry Highland )) Maroney v. Iacobsohn (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 900, 907 [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 257, 262].

Power of the court to correct its own mistakes:

It is well settled that a court has the inherent power to correct clerical error in its judgment so that the judgment will reflect the true facts. In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705, 91 Cal.Rptr. 497, 477 P.2d 729. Conservatorship of Tobias (1989) 208 Cal. App.3d 1031, 1034 [256 Cal.Rptr. 525, 527]. The power of a court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments is also a statutory power pursuant to section 473. Id.

“The court’s inherent power to correct clerical errors includes errors made in the entry of the judgment or due to inadvertence of the court.” Id. Section 473 in pertinent part provides: “The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may … set aside any void judgment or order.” Id.

 “‘The term clerical error covers all errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the exercise of the judicial function. If an error, mistake, or omission is the result of inadvertence, but for which a different judgment would have been rendered, the error is clerical and the judgment may be corrected….’” Id. (quoting George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co. (1948) 83 Cal. App. 2d 478, 480–481, 189 P.2d 301).

Section 473 deals motions for relief from judgment. Subdivision (d) provides:

The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.

Code Civ. Proc., § 473

“The general rule with respect to the power of the court to modify a judgment does not preclude the court from correcting clerical errors and misprisions either in the entry of the judgment or due to inadvertence of the court.” Pettigrew v. Grand Rent-A-Car (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 204, 210 [201 Cal.Rptr. 125, 128-29]. “If an error, mistake, or omission is the result of inadvertence, but for which a different judgment would have been rendered, the error is clerical and the judgment may be corrected to correspond with what it would have been but for the inadvertence.” Id. (quoting George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co. (1948) 83 Cal. App. 2d 478, 481, 189 P.2d 301).

In the instant case, Petitioner has been denied the right to a new trial due to inadvertence on the part of the court. According to the precedents on the subject matter, inadvertence of the court is a clerical error and should be corrected by the court to render a judgment that would have been appropriate had there been no inadvertence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court may have jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion for new trial under its power to correct its own errors or mistakes. This is an inherent as well as statutory power. Per § 473, the court can correct errors caused by inadvertence. This applies to the instant case and the court has jurisdiction to rule on Petitioner’s motion for new trial.